RE: E-petition opposes Govt plans to scrap classic MoT
Discussion
Problem with this is that some things should not be up for discussion.
As nice as a democracy is, one of its largest failings is that joe public is asked to vote on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.
Its a bit like the gun control, fox hunting, smoking. Every joe seems to have an opinion and decides that his opinion should count, but no-one ever steps back and says am I qualified or invested enough to have an opinion on this. So you get townee's voting on countryside issues, Mrs mop voting on sportscars and speeding issues etc etc.
This particular failing means that minority groups, and I would class owners of pre 70's cars in this, are relatively penalised by the great unwashed who's sole knowledge on the subject they are voting on is whats been fed to them by the daily mail the day before.
Even on PH the actual mechanical knowledge seems pretty woefull sometimes, so a few pictures from the archives of sterling moss crashing in a D type jag with the banner headline of '1960's death car on our roads' would probably be a better bet for the op prior to his e-petition.
As nice as a democracy is, one of its largest failings is that joe public is asked to vote on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.
Its a bit like the gun control, fox hunting, smoking. Every joe seems to have an opinion and decides that his opinion should count, but no-one ever steps back and says am I qualified or invested enough to have an opinion on this. So you get townee's voting on countryside issues, Mrs mop voting on sportscars and speeding issues etc etc.
This particular failing means that minority groups, and I would class owners of pre 70's cars in this, are relatively penalised by the great unwashed who's sole knowledge on the subject they are voting on is whats been fed to them by the daily mail the day before.
Even on PH the actual mechanical knowledge seems pretty woefull sometimes, so a few pictures from the archives of sterling moss crashing in a D type jag with the banner headline of '1960's death car on our roads' would probably be a better bet for the op prior to his e-petition.
I dont believe half of the people on here ,when there cars up for mot they flap and moan about it failing and the costs and then say its wrong when someone else gets mot exempt . You moan about tax exempt just because your car isnt pre 73 .You have a few options either , learn how to fix cars yourself to avoid the bills ,get a pre 73 or pre 60 car and fix it yourself or get a better job and stop moaning about the costs .
thejpster said:
A cursory glance shows those pre-1960s cars have a pretty poor pass rate. So, what, if we don't test them they'll be more roadworthy?
Clearly not. And in a small number of cases they will be worse. However, the current MOT is not really a fair test of a car that could be a century old in some cases.No vintage car would have passed the modern MOT when it was new. Even if you ignore things like emissions control they wouldn't have passed with cable brakes, non-existent seat belts and indicators that consisted of the driver's arms.
Step into the vast majority of really old cars and the driving experience is totally alien to a modern driver. Ultimately the most crucial measure of safety is how well a car can brake or swerve in an emergency, and then protect the occupants if that fails. Practically no pre-1960s car will do that to anything resembling a modern standard.
So as it stands many old car MOTs come down to a degree of leniency from the tester, based on what appears to be a well looked after car and a clued up owner. They know the car will come out for a few sunny weekends every year, chug down some quiet roads at 30mph then go back in their garage for another month. An MOT - conducted with a degree of sympathy - is arguably better than none, but it's already a bit of a fiddle.
Looking at posters garages there seems to be a lot of people jumping on this who really have no reason to poke their noses in.....If this legislation change does not affect you directly why do you feel you have the need to get involved?
As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
For those vehmently against, how many have actually owned a pre-60s car; actually maintain their car themselves; have read the MOT manual or watched an MOT take place?
It strikes me as a case of "why should they be exempt when I'm not", oh that sounds like risk could be involved - ban it, think of the children.
I'd be interested to know what the reaction would be in reverse - changing regs to require cars <3 years old to have an annual MOT.
It strikes me as a case of "why should they be exempt when I'm not", oh that sounds like risk could be involved - ban it, think of the children.
I'd be interested to know what the reaction would be in reverse - changing regs to require cars <3 years old to have an annual MOT.
Excelsior said:
Looking at posters garages there seems to be a lot of people jumping on this who really have no reason to poke their noses in.....If this legislation change does not affect you directly why do you feel you have the need to get involved?
As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
What!!!!?As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
I don't take heroin but I will get involved if they try and legalise it.
But even besides that I may wish to own a pre 1960 car tomorrow, or next year or never.
I don't know why I even bothered to reply to this.
Fast Bug said:
jrampton said:
My daily drive is a 1970 Beetle and despite owning this and previously owning a 1959 VW splitscreen van and knowing what a pain it is getting either through an MOT i am still against scrapping it.
Just take a look at all the 'rat look' vw's that are all the trend at the moment most of them are death traps with an MOT i'd dread to think what condition they would get in without one. There is also a potential to have a 1950's car that has been sat in a shed rotting away, the owner can now drag it out, pump the tyres up and off they go !
My Beetle got through a modern MOT with a load of welding but at least i know its safe (ish) for me and the kid i almost ran over the other week playing chicken in the road, who would have been dead if the brakes were in the condition they where when i first got the car.
Pretty much my thoughts on it. I've got a 1961 Beetle, and even if it was pre '60 I'd be opposed to no MOT's. I've seen some real death traps at shows and I'd hate to be anywhere near them. I've had a lucky escape myself, car booked in for an MOT, and on the pre MOT check my mechanic found I had a cracked rear wheel, it's not visible from the outside and hadn't let any air out. Without an MOT check it was a massive accident waiting to happen. And this is on a car maintained without questioning what needs to be done.Just take a look at all the 'rat look' vw's that are all the trend at the moment most of them are death traps with an MOT i'd dread to think what condition they would get in without one. There is also a potential to have a 1950's car that has been sat in a shed rotting away, the owner can now drag it out, pump the tyres up and off they go !
My Beetle got through a modern MOT with a load of welding but at least i know its safe (ish) for me and the kid i almost ran over the other week playing chicken in the road, who would have been dead if the brakes were in the condition they where when i first got the car.
On another note, I think the MOT should be every year and not when the car reaches 3 years old, there are people driving round with shagged tyres and brakes way before then...
I bought a shonky old BL classic before I passed my test. It sat outside the house for a few months as few people would go out with me. After the brakes failed, luckily the car landing the correct way up, I found it that it had had an MoT at some garage known to be a bit lax 20 odd miles down the road. Unlike the same model of the same age for US consumption it didn't have split circuit brakes.
How many defects are already cited in road fatalities? I can think of 4 over three motorcycle fatalities that involve knackered tyres, nails in tyres or cooking oil for brake fluid.
It's bizarre that a sound saloon from the 90s with all the safety improvements can have a screwdriver poked through a cill from the outside which then necessitates a plate welded in but a pre-1960 vehicle that may be a rot box doesn't need any safety check.
How many youngsters having learnt to drive in something with ABS, airbags and PAS then get given some nicely reprayed and polished 'classic' that's a death trap?
Enough young, inexperienced drivers die in modern cars without letting more of them die in crusty old wrecks that shouldn't be on the road.
This move endangers others that may be around, be they in other vehicles, on the pavement or in their front rooms minding their own business.
jagnet said:
For those vehmently against, how many have actually owned a pre-60s car; actually maintain their car themselves; have read the MOT manual or watched an MOT take place?
It strikes me as a case of "why should they be exempt when I'm not", oh that sounds like risk could be involved - ban it, think of the children.
I'd be interested to know what the reaction would be in reverse - changing regs to require cars <3 years old to have an annual MOT.
Two people who have different opinions on the same subject may understand the subject equally as well.It strikes me as a case of "why should they be exempt when I'm not", oh that sounds like risk could be involved - ban it, think of the children.
I'd be interested to know what the reaction would be in reverse - changing regs to require cars <3 years old to have an annual MOT.
But I don't think you understand it at all.
Children and jealousy do not factor in the arguement against for me and from what I have read, for many others.
So... you can either buy a safer and more fuel efficient modern car and pay a fortune to tax it & have annual stringent MOT's...
OR
buy a pile of rust that does sub 20 mpg and will probably fold like cardboard in a crash, but not worry about the MOT or pay for road tax.
Hmmmmm if only people didn't think so conventionally in this country, we could end up with some really interesting cars back on the road (or at the side of it)!
OR
buy a pile of rust that does sub 20 mpg and will probably fold like cardboard in a crash, but not worry about the MOT or pay for road tax.
Hmmmmm if only people didn't think so conventionally in this country, we could end up with some really interesting cars back on the road (or at the side of it)!
carinaman said:
This.
I bought a shonky old BL classic before I passed my test. It sat outside the house for a few months as few people would go out with me. After the brakes failed, luckily the car landing the correct way up, I found it that it had had an MoT at some garage known to be a bit lax 20 odd miles down the road. Unlike the same model of the same age for US consumption it didn't have split circuit brakes.
So the brakes failed several months after the MOT, after the car had stood unused? And that's the fault of the MOT tester being lax?I bought a shonky old BL classic before I passed my test. It sat outside the house for a few months as few people would go out with me. After the brakes failed, luckily the car landing the correct way up, I found it that it had had an MoT at some garage known to be a bit lax 20 odd miles down the road. Unlike the same model of the same age for US consumption it didn't have split circuit brakes.
carinaman said:
How many defects are already cited in road fatalities? I can think of 4 over three motorcycle fatalities that involve knackered tyres, nails in tyres or cooking oil for brake fluid.
So let's have a monthly MOT test on all cars, just to be on the safe side.carinaman said:
It's bizarre that a sound saloon from the 90s with all the safety improvements can have a screwdriver poked through a cill from the outside which then necessitates a plate welded in but a pre-1960 vehicle that may be a rot box doesn't need any safety check.
I think it's safe to say that the 90s saloon with greater speed, performance and weight presents a significantly higher risk than say, an Austin 7.carinaman said:
How many youngsters having learnt to drive in something with ABS, airbags and PAS then get given some nicely reprayed and polished 'classic' that's a death trap?
Not many I suspect.carinaman said:
Enough young, inexperienced drivers die in modern cars without letting more of them die in crusty old wrecks that shouldn't be on the road.
Yep, the under 20s will be queuing up to buy a 1924 Humber 11 to avoid the MOT.carinaman said:
This move endangers others that may be around, be they in other vehicles, on the pavement or in their front rooms minding their own business.
Given the lack of miles driven by pre 1960s cars, and the tendency for them not to tailgate at 70 on the motorway, or hoon across B-roads I really don't see much justification for playing up such risks.Excelsior said:
Looking at posters garages there seems to be a lot of people jumping on this who really have no reason to poke their noses in.....If this legislation change does not affect you directly why do you feel you have the need to get involved?
As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
It's true, all four of my classics will still be being MoTd. But they still would be getting checked out by a specialist annually even if they were exempt. I do a lot of work on classic cars, but I am not good enough (or arrogant enough) to assume that my mechanical abilities alone are enough to guarantee total safety. Just as if I had built a plane, I wouldn't want to fly the bloody thing until someone else had safety checked it.As far as I can tell James' car will still be being MOT'd...
That's why, much as I hate the angst an MoT causes every year, I begrudgingly accept it. It can reveal (and has revealed) things I have completely missed, or more importantly, give me pre-warning about problems that are around the corner so I can address them.
No, my beef is that we all know the current test is wholly inappropriate to classic cars and plenty of "youngtimers", too. And this is simply not the answer: to scrap the test for a load of vehicles and just hope that everyone affected has the money and/or skills to ensure their road safety, yet picking a cursory date and then leaving the test for another bunch of vehicles that it is equally unsuitable for.
That is why I have suggested one more simple test simply for all classic cars.
Before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, however, that is not why I have called for the legislation to be reversed for pre-1960 vehicles.
The thing is, this has much wider potential repercussions. As someone who drives classics pretty much every day and knows lots of others who do the same, the most important single aspect of our hobby to me is the freedom for all older vehicles to be used without restriction (either voluntary or enforced). At the moment we, unlike some countries, can enjoy that freedom, but it is always under threat from authority. We should never ignore the prospect of anything from universal annual mileage limits to an outright ban. It may seem far-fetched and paranoid now, but...
So, the two aspects that will arise from this new law that I think are relevant are a) the (inevitable) outcry, negative focus and call for a ban/restrictions that there will be when (inevitably) an unroadworthy untested pre-1960 vehicle causes a death (it only takes one after all), and b) the marginalisation of classic cars, creating a perception that they are occasional playthings and not everyday cars, and lowering the barrier of resistance to legislating against total freedom of use in future.
In short, if we can prove our cars are safe and maintained (and not just be trusted to ensure they are) then that is the greatest single argument as to why we should be able to continue to use and enjoy them at our will, and the best way of staving off any future moves to constrict our hobby.
Plus, I would feel a lot happier knowing that my cars (exempt or not) and everyone else's have been checked over by a third party. I forget who quoted the ROSPA report earlier, but I reckon that hit the nail on the head from a safety point of view. The political point of view is an entirely different matter, though.
Phew, apologies for the length of that.
This is so small a risk compared to the rest of the motoring population with their bald tyres, knackered suspension and worn out brakes, nobody in their right mind will buy a car form before 1960 because they can avoid and MOT as generally old cars are a pain in the arse and dont suit someone with that mentality, really think Joe Scote is going to be coaxed out of his 1995 Mondeo Estate with Duct tape bumpers for a 1959 Moggy ?
Cant really see why they are doing it but it isnt worth worrying about.
Cant really see why they are doing it but it isnt worth worrying about.
julian64 said:
Problem with this is that some things should not be up for discussion.
As nice as a democracy is, one of its largest failings is that joe public is asked to vote on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.
Its a bit like the gun control, fox hunting, smoking. Every joe seems to have an opinion and decides that his opinion should count, but no-one ever steps back and says am I qualified or invested enough to have an opinion on this. So you get townee's voting on countryside issues, Mrs mop voting on sportscars and speeding issues etc etc.
This particular failing means that minority groups, and I would class owners of pre 70's cars in this, are relatively penalised by the great unwashed who's sole knowledge on the subject they are voting on is whats been fed to them by the daily mail the day before.
Even on PH the actual mechanical knowledge seems pretty woefull sometimes, so a few pictures from the archives of sterling moss crashing in a D type jag with the banner headline of '1960's death car on our roads' would probably be a better bet for the op prior to his e-petition.
Got to agree with this - I've long maintained that the biggest problem with democracy is that there are too many stupid people who's opinions have to be indulged.As nice as a democracy is, one of its largest failings is that joe public is asked to vote on subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.
Its a bit like the gun control, fox hunting, smoking. Every joe seems to have an opinion and decides that his opinion should count, but no-one ever steps back and says am I qualified or invested enough to have an opinion on this. So you get townee's voting on countryside issues, Mrs mop voting on sportscars and speeding issues etc etc.
This particular failing means that minority groups, and I would class owners of pre 70's cars in this, are relatively penalised by the great unwashed who's sole knowledge on the subject they are voting on is whats been fed to them by the daily mail the day before.
Even on PH the actual mechanical knowledge seems pretty woefull sometimes, so a few pictures from the archives of sterling moss crashing in a D type jag with the banner headline of '1960's death car on our roads' would probably be a better bet for the op prior to his e-petition.
Whether I agree or not with the MOT proposals is a different matter.
carinaman said:
People have never bought a pre-73 car to avoid the road tax?
Over say, increased fuel economy / convenience / reliability of a modern car? Very few I suspect. If you were in the market for a classic from the 70s anyway, then yes a '73 is tempting over a '74 all other things being equal.carinaman said:
People have never bought a pre-73 car to avoid the road tax?
It isn't the whole decision though it is, a family after a people carrier aren't going to buy an Austin Cambridge instead to save the VED, a lot of modern cars are not far off free anyway, thats where the chances to avoid it are used, pre 73 cars are hard work by and large, I have a 91 944 and even that feels ancient compared to a modern car.I cannot believe that any true motoring enthusiast would sign this stupid e-petition. MOTs are just another layer of hassle and cost and Mike Penning's logic is sound. This is a rare case of the government doing something to benefit motoring enthusiasts and then some so called enthusiasts want to complain about it. What a bunch of t
ts!
ts! Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff